The Energon Pub

Whenever i see the original jurassic park i think to myself "looks fake" especially the scene when they are running with little dinos. will tranformers be just another bad cgi film? forgive me but i kind of get eye sores with cgi anymore.

i was thinking the same thing but realistically, if they get as realistic as they get, u wouldnt exactly say that cuz it looks completely real and theres nothing wrong to make it sumhow unrealistic so i would think, once it gets to a point (which i reckon they have alredy reached) you couldnt really go much higher than that unless u use sum kinda new technology like 3d or wateva

I grew up watching Star Wars in the theater and thought nothing would ever look cooler or more real than that. Now when I watch that movie, all I see is the cutouts around the Tie Fighters and other obvious cringeworthy 'special effects' (but, in all honesty, it was a 'low budget' movie, so I really can't get too het up on it being, well, low budget.)

The early seasons of Beast Wars are hideous. I can't imagine anyone ever thought they were brilliantly animated, but apparently they did (I didn't get to see them during their initial release). So now BW is cringe-inducing. Beast Machines, which was not so far after, still looks pretty good--the wincing watching *that* show comes from the plot.

So it seems that we have two threads here: limitations of technology (the difference between 1977 and now), which can continue to develop, but it eventually runs into the other limitation: the human eye/brain. Average digital video records at 30 frames per second (non digital is 24 fps). That means that at thirty images per second our eye perceives continuous presence (google 'persistence of vision'). That means that any more than 30 fps is really just wasted--the eye/brain really can't perceive much difference.

Edison filmed at 60 or 64 fps (can't remember which), and if you watch his old movies (like my favorite one with the boxing cats) it looks *weird* like it's in slow motion. That's because our eye can't process that many images quickly enough.

So, while technology might continue to develop, I think we might be *close*, with all this HD and BluRay, to the limit of what our little eyeballs can see and appreciate.

HK, feelin' all technical.

well said, but if u think original cut star wars looks bad what do u think of 80 flash gordon movie w/hawkmen lol.

If CGI continues to improve...yeah, it will. Of course it will. I mean, not every movie can be The Matrix. (I am quite certain that in ten years, the Matrix will still look pretty good)

Well think of Pixar.
Their first feature was Toy Story in 1995. And now you look at Wall-E and soon to come Up and the animation is FAR more advanced.
But Toy Story is no less entertaining than it was originally.

And someone already mentioned Star Wars.
The originals look undeniably fake. But years from when they were created, people are still watching them and spending money on copies of the films.

I personally think that the first Transformers movie is pretty darned real looking. But even if years from now the animation does get even better, no one is going to care.
People will still watch it and enjoy it.

It all depends on what the technology is like at the momment. For example my mom and I awhile back watched part of the original black and white King Kong movie.

And the effects were so bad me and her were laughing in hysterics.

Kong looked like the Abominable Snowman from that stop motion Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer movie, only with black fur.

But when it first came out, people were terrified while watching that film.

Will people be laughing at what the TFs look like in these films years from now? It's hard to believe for us.
But the films will still be enjoyable.

With star wars I agree the dog fights are elaborate toy models, on the other hand the puppetry still holds up quite well. Clash of the titans is obvious but I still can suspend belief. I love It. The best cgi clip imo is the autobot scene/pow wow in the desert. The metal on the bots look very real but (yea cgi doesn't age well)

while I dont like Bays movie, they do seem to age well. When you watch them, they always clearly remind of the era of they were made in..for example The Rock.

They obviously wont compare to whats out currently, or fool anyone into thinking it was made in 2020, especially with those designs IMO...clean designs are what last longest, not busy.

But yes, I would imagine they would age gracefully.

NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:clean designs are what last longest, not busy.

Like Alien, or Predator, or the Millennium Falcon, or Terminator, or Freddy Krueger, or most of the Undead. You get the idea. Busy or dirty designs aren't necessarily bad ones.

I think these movies will still look good 10-15 years from now. I can't say that CGI is going to get any better than it already is.

my 2 cents. I really think the 1st movie looks pretty good. It has the "cool" factor for me. I really think they did a good job of representing shapeshifting robots, considering we don't really have any idea what "shapeshifting robots" are supposed to look like.

As far as Star Wars goes, I still think the first movie holds up extremely well. Compared to other movies of that era, the effects are just fantastic. I seriously think they did an amazing job when you consider what resources were available at the time.

Ok the 07 movie is still pretty young give it time 2 age. And as far of star wars the new movies look super fake. Like roger rabbit fake